So, the CF&S Committee decided to vote in favour of a new and socially divisive admissions system. Families in Coombe Road, Bevendean and Moulsecoomb are in a single catchment for Falmer School.
All the talk in the news today is about lotteries for popular schools in the city: Dorothy Stringer, Varndean, Blatchington Mill and Hove Park. Well, we will not even get the opportunity to enter those lotteries. We have lost the lottery already. We are second in the queue for the "good schools".
On the BBC news story Schools to give places by lottery we are told, "Brighton and Hove says the new system will give more children a better chance of getting into popular schools." I nearly spat out my breakfast when I read this. More middle-class children perhaps, but children from Moulsecoomb and Bevendean while have no chance of accessing any of the most popular schools. Not even a glimmer.
So you'll understand that when Pat Hawkes comes out with another platitude, "Brighton and Hove is a city of haves and have-nots and the have-nots have been left out", I gave up trying to eat my breakfast altogether and my partner had to head for the shower as he was covered in orange juice.
So what do we have now under the new admissions system. Do we all get an equal opportunity to access the "best schools" in the city? Or do some children only get a chance to access the least popular ones? Ding, dong! Yes, we have another group of "have nots" who are less likely to complain because they are used to being in this situation.
Some people may want to send their child to Falmer. It might be the best school for them. Others may not. The choice is no longer there for those of us in this single catchment.
The criteria for naming a school a "good school" or a "worse school" are set by the government. The league tables and Ofsted reports that offer parents, as consumers, guides when making their choices are supposed to help us make a choice in favour of good schools. Falmer School has been improving partly because they have taken children from an extended catchment incorporating more parents who are enthusiastic about education, but this new admissions system will ensure that the school is cut-off at the knees as the catchment from which they take shrinks. Pat Hawkes, don't try to sell me the idea that all schools in Brighton & Hove are "good schools". They are not equally good, and it does not take much to ruin a school completely. Falmer's future is uncertain.
This is now a two-tier education system, except the boundaries between those that will receive a good education, and those that will receive an education of a lower standard, are very clearly drawn.
All the children will receive an education which is less comprehensive, whether middle-class or working class. The catchments are drawn roughly along class divides. They will meet fewer peers from different backgrounds to themselves. They should learn from experience how other people live, and learn to be tolerant of other people's values, but also to test their own values against others. Let's actively counter prejudice and ignorance, rather than teach it in citizenship classes.
I would love Pat Hawkes and Brighton & Hove Council to eat their own words - then perhaps I would be able to eat my breakfast. I'm disgusted at the result of this review. It is disgraceful that politics have been allowed to influence such an important decision. The May council elections are far more significant than the future of our children. Politicians with a stake in the outcome should not be allowed to make a decision on schools admissions if this is what happens. The Greens and Labour groups both dismissed members of Children, Families & Schools Committee because they were having doubts about the decision. I'm sure they will gain votes in the marginal seats, which incidentally gain access to the popular schools now. They may be surprised how many votes they lose in previous Labour strongholds.
I can say with confidence that the Council have failed to make a fairer admissions system. So much for choice and opportunity. So much for diversity in a comprehensive system. The combination of elements that Brighton & Hove have employed results in "haves and have nots", a two-tier system of education that will deny many children in poorer areas the fantastic education they deserve.
Wednesday, 28 February 2007
Tuesday, 27 February 2007
***Notice: Demo at CF&S Decision Meeting Tonight!***
Parents will be gathering to demonstrate for and against the proposals outside the Children, Families & Schools Committee Meeting this evening at Brighton Town Hall from 4pm. The meeting starts at 5pm. You can see the meeting, but will need to go to the Council reception and get yourself an entry ticket. You should do this as soon as you arrive.
Please note, the meeting as at BRIGHTON TOWN HALL in BARTHOLEMEW SQUARE. (Not at Hove Town Hall as it was last time.)
Bring whistles, banners, and your children if they are up to it. This is your last chance to get your voice heard. If you do not take responsiblity yourselves and speak out, no one else can for you.
Clearly, I would like the vote to go against the proposals, as I feel that they are unfair to my area, Moulsecoomb, Bevendean and Coombe Road, but also to many other areas in the city. They will destroy the lovely community that has developed here. I don't think anyone has really heard how they will affect us. The mantra of "doing what's best for the whole city" seems like a way of closing ears to our concerns, rather than actually recognising that the city is made up of communities and each community's interests must be heard properly in order for the right decision that is "best for the city as a whole" to be made.
I find it unbelievable that people accuse Juliet McCaffery of thinking just of her area. She listened to families from this area and responded to them, she spoke to people from Patcham and Portslade. She debated with us; she questioned our stance. We had to persuade her and it took time. Moreover, there is no shame in being persuaded. She certainly did not sell out or act selfishly for her own Ward. She actually listened to the parts of the city that she had not heard from. And then, after all that, she made the difficult decision of breaking with the Labour group. I don't think anyone would choose to do that unless they were driven by a strong moral imperative. It is not an easy thing to do. Since the CF&S meeting on 2nd February she has been denied the opportunity by the Council to speak publicly and defend her decision. Judgement has been passed without proper trial.
I still do not think that the concerns of many of the parents living in the Longhill catchment, or the catchment for Portslade Community College have been heard. Not only that, but Patcham parents have also had a raw deal. All these areas will suffer from lack of choice.
We have never had an easy entry into secondary schools here. It has always been a lottery for our children, but at least there was a chance of a choice. That will be denied us under the new system. If these proposals are voted in, our families will assume the burden as our choice is removed and our local school is denied anything near a comprehensive intake. We won't have the lottery, but we won't have the choice either - many of our parents want the choice more. Even then, comprehensive intakes are the most vital thing: if Falmer were given a more comprehensive intake, we might have been prepared to compromise. We are supporting Falmer, we have fought for a broader intake for the school all along; we want the school to have a chance to build on its "improving" status.
We are fed the supposed panacea of the Academy, and you will forgive us if we are skeptical. New buildings are all very well, but we are most concerned about opportunities for our children to learn and prepare for adulthood and the demands of the workplace. We want to know that the school will not be a Secondary Modern in Academy clothing. The emphasis on work related learning is all very well, but when the government wants 50% of teenagers to go to university, then you know that the job market will begin to require a degree as standard, and to study for degrees you need a good academic education. Vocational training is right in some cases, but can also narrow young people's opportunities rather than expand them. There are frequently articles in the press about our young people's failure to provide the workplace with basic skills (communication and numeracy) or transferable skills (languages, IT skills, analytical skills for example). Vocational training is all very well, but, I would argue, should not be the foundation for a child's education.
In addition, a real comprehensive education, in which children are exposed to a variety of people from different backgrounds, will give them confidence when they grow up to build good relationships with people from all walks of life. I regard this as equally important as it can counter the intolerance and prejudice born of ignorance, and open up new horizons for our young people. That is why I want a more comprehensive Falmer, and that is why the whole city should fight for a more comprehensive admissions system.
If you are against the SAR proposals, don't give up on the city yet. Give it one more chance to make the right decision. Get yourself down to Brighton Town Hall today at 4pm and scream your lungs out for your community, and for those areas that will lose out on diversity at their local school and choice!
Please note, the meeting as at BRIGHTON TOWN HALL in BARTHOLEMEW SQUARE. (Not at Hove Town Hall as it was last time.)
Bring whistles, banners, and your children if they are up to it. This is your last chance to get your voice heard. If you do not take responsiblity yourselves and speak out, no one else can for you.
Clearly, I would like the vote to go against the proposals, as I feel that they are unfair to my area, Moulsecoomb, Bevendean and Coombe Road, but also to many other areas in the city. They will destroy the lovely community that has developed here. I don't think anyone has really heard how they will affect us. The mantra of "doing what's best for the whole city" seems like a way of closing ears to our concerns, rather than actually recognising that the city is made up of communities and each community's interests must be heard properly in order for the right decision that is "best for the city as a whole" to be made.
I find it unbelievable that people accuse Juliet McCaffery of thinking just of her area. She listened to families from this area and responded to them, she spoke to people from Patcham and Portslade. She debated with us; she questioned our stance. We had to persuade her and it took time. Moreover, there is no shame in being persuaded. She certainly did not sell out or act selfishly for her own Ward. She actually listened to the parts of the city that she had not heard from. And then, after all that, she made the difficult decision of breaking with the Labour group. I don't think anyone would choose to do that unless they were driven by a strong moral imperative. It is not an easy thing to do. Since the CF&S meeting on 2nd February she has been denied the opportunity by the Council to speak publicly and defend her decision. Judgement has been passed without proper trial.
I still do not think that the concerns of many of the parents living in the Longhill catchment, or the catchment for Portslade Community College have been heard. Not only that, but Patcham parents have also had a raw deal. All these areas will suffer from lack of choice.
We have never had an easy entry into secondary schools here. It has always been a lottery for our children, but at least there was a chance of a choice. That will be denied us under the new system. If these proposals are voted in, our families will assume the burden as our choice is removed and our local school is denied anything near a comprehensive intake. We won't have the lottery, but we won't have the choice either - many of our parents want the choice more. Even then, comprehensive intakes are the most vital thing: if Falmer were given a more comprehensive intake, we might have been prepared to compromise. We are supporting Falmer, we have fought for a broader intake for the school all along; we want the school to have a chance to build on its "improving" status.
We are fed the supposed panacea of the Academy, and you will forgive us if we are skeptical. New buildings are all very well, but we are most concerned about opportunities for our children to learn and prepare for adulthood and the demands of the workplace. We want to know that the school will not be a Secondary Modern in Academy clothing. The emphasis on work related learning is all very well, but when the government wants 50% of teenagers to go to university, then you know that the job market will begin to require a degree as standard, and to study for degrees you need a good academic education. Vocational training is right in some cases, but can also narrow young people's opportunities rather than expand them. There are frequently articles in the press about our young people's failure to provide the workplace with basic skills (communication and numeracy) or transferable skills (languages, IT skills, analytical skills for example). Vocational training is all very well, but, I would argue, should not be the foundation for a child's education.
In addition, a real comprehensive education, in which children are exposed to a variety of people from different backgrounds, will give them confidence when they grow up to build good relationships with people from all walks of life. I regard this as equally important as it can counter the intolerance and prejudice born of ignorance, and open up new horizons for our young people. That is why I want a more comprehensive Falmer, and that is why the whole city should fight for a more comprehensive admissions system.
If you are against the SAR proposals, don't give up on the city yet. Give it one more chance to make the right decision. Get yourself down to Brighton Town Hall today at 4pm and scream your lungs out for your community, and for those areas that will lose out on diversity at their local school and choice!
Wednesday, 21 February 2007
Notice: Meeting for Coombe Road Schools parents tomorrow night
There will be an important meeting at Coombe Road School tomorrow night, Thursday 22nd, at 7pm in the Main Hall.
Stuart McLaughlin, the head of Falmer, will be there to discuss the changes to admissions, and to talk about the proposed Falmer Academy.
All parents should attend as this is vital information about the education of your children. I would add that this meeting is only for parents at our school.
Please come and support the local community, the school, and your children!
Stuart McLaughlin, the head of Falmer, will be there to discuss the changes to admissions, and to talk about the proposed Falmer Academy.
All parents should attend as this is vital information about the education of your children. I would add that this meeting is only for parents at our school.
Please come and support the local community, the school, and your children!
Dorothy Stringer meeting a success
Over 400 parents turned out for the Schools4Communities Dorothy Stringer meeting last night. The meeting ran until 10.15pm and many people in the audience had a good opportunity to ask questions.
Several councillors, including Kevin Allen (Labour, Preston Park), Ken Norman (Conservative, Withdean), Anne Norman (Conservative, Withdean), Vanessa Brown (Conservative, Stanford), Jayne Bennett (Independent, Stanford) and Pat Drake (Conservative, Withdean) were present. Juliet McCaffery, another Labour councillor for Preston Park, was present and joked that she was finally being given a chance to speak publically about the SAR - she was prevented from speaking at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee last week by her Labour colleague and Chair of that committee, Simon Battle. When she was introduced there was a spontaneous round of applause for her principled stand on the issue.
Anne Meadows could not attend, but she sent her apologies, and Cate Miller read the speech she gave to CF&S Committee on 2nd February.
MYTH BUSTING
What also became very clear was that so many parents thought that the new admissions system would not affect children in lower years. Children in years 4, 3, 2 and 1 will all be affected by the new admissions proposals!!!
Parents in what will be the Dorothy Stringer and Varndean catchment were also shocked to hear that the catchment will be oversubscribed and by upwards of 95 children. When you take into account the priority given to out-of-catchment siblings and to children with statements of Special Educational Needs (SEN), this looks like it will be an even bigger problem. Many of them did not realize that so many children could be sent out of catchment as a result of the lottery. Nor did they realize that the lottery would involve all the children in the catchment, not just a few.
LONGHILL MUM AIRED HER VIEWS
It was also good to meet a mum from Longhill. She spoke to the hall about the situation they face: that they will have a difficult intake with high levels of Special Educational Needs (SEN) and that the school will also be oversubscribed.
She was concerned that they would not have adequate funding and resources to support these children properly - children previously split into schools across the city and doing well under those circumstances. Her other fear was the the school would ultimately fail and that the city would have another COMART on their hands.
As places for pupils are at capacity the city cannot afford to lose another school. Their parents may have to go through a lottery that in Rottingdean they only found out how the proposals will affect them about 2 weeks ago. It's a dismally familiar story.
HEAD OF DOROTHY STRINGER SPOKE OUT AGAINST THE PROPOSALS
Trevor Allen expressed his concerns about the new proposals. He argued that as the schools are at capacity - that there is no surplus of places - that this would cause inflexibility and lead to failure in a fixed catchment system.
He was concerned that parts of the city have been set against each other by the SAR, and argued that what the city really needs - especially with so many new developments springing up - is a new school. He thought the Argus should front a petition from the City of Brighton & Hove to be sent to Whitehall requesting, as a special case, that we be granted funds urgently for the building of a new school in the city. He thought that this would help resolve some of the issues, and also bring the city together again.
What was also interesting was that the Working Group had been informed by council officials that the head teachers of Varndean and Stringer were being consulted on certain issues:
If Dorothy Stringer and Varndean did attain Trust School status, it would send the whole proposed fixed catchment system into turmoil.
He also suggested that David Hawker might find a way out of this problem by deciding to lead and drive a campaign for a new school for Brighton & Hove all the way to Whitehall.
Other speakers included ex-member of the Working Group, Martin Powell, who spoke eloquently about COMART and Kevin Allen who was concerned that the CofE representative on Scrutiny was being abused by councillors not happy with the outcome of that meeting (the return of the proposals to CF&S next Tuesday). Vanessa Brown also spoke briefly to offer her support to the campaign against the SAR.
SCHOOLS4COMMUNITIES SPEAKERS
Members of Schools4Communities spoke, including the Chair, Mark Bannister, Robert Eastwood, Paul Fellingham, and press spokesperson, Tracey-Ann Ross.
Mark Bannister gave a well-reasoned overview of the anti-proposals position, and set out some of the significant concerns for areas across the city including: Moulsecoomb, Bevendean, Coombe Road, Preston Park, Fiveways and Balfour, Patcham, Withdean and Westdene, parts of Hove, Hangleton, Portslade, Woodingdean and Rottingdean.
In addition, Robert Eastwood set out the future of the campaign. S4C are prepared to take the campaign all the way to Judicial Review. In the meantime, they will be providing more advice to parents on they difference they can personally make at the S4C website here.
The Argus have published an article on the meeting here.
Several councillors, including Kevin Allen (Labour, Preston Park), Ken Norman (Conservative, Withdean), Anne Norman (Conservative, Withdean), Vanessa Brown (Conservative, Stanford), Jayne Bennett (Independent, Stanford) and Pat Drake (Conservative, Withdean) were present. Juliet McCaffery, another Labour councillor for Preston Park, was present and joked that she was finally being given a chance to speak publically about the SAR - she was prevented from speaking at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee last week by her Labour colleague and Chair of that committee, Simon Battle. When she was introduced there was a spontaneous round of applause for her principled stand on the issue.
Anne Meadows could not attend, but she sent her apologies, and Cate Miller read the speech she gave to CF&S Committee on 2nd February.
MYTH BUSTING
What also became very clear was that so many parents thought that the new admissions system would not affect children in lower years. Children in years 4, 3, 2 and 1 will all be affected by the new admissions proposals!!!
Parents in what will be the Dorothy Stringer and Varndean catchment were also shocked to hear that the catchment will be oversubscribed and by upwards of 95 children. When you take into account the priority given to out-of-catchment siblings and to children with statements of Special Educational Needs (SEN), this looks like it will be an even bigger problem. Many of them did not realize that so many children could be sent out of catchment as a result of the lottery. Nor did they realize that the lottery would involve all the children in the catchment, not just a few.
LONGHILL MUM AIRED HER VIEWS
It was also good to meet a mum from Longhill. She spoke to the hall about the situation they face: that they will have a difficult intake with high levels of Special Educational Needs (SEN) and that the school will also be oversubscribed.
She was concerned that they would not have adequate funding and resources to support these children properly - children previously split into schools across the city and doing well under those circumstances. Her other fear was the the school would ultimately fail and that the city would have another COMART on their hands.
As places for pupils are at capacity the city cannot afford to lose another school. Their parents may have to go through a lottery that in Rottingdean they only found out how the proposals will affect them about 2 weeks ago. It's a dismally familiar story.
HEAD OF DOROTHY STRINGER SPOKE OUT AGAINST THE PROPOSALS
Trevor Allen expressed his concerns about the new proposals. He argued that as the schools are at capacity - that there is no surplus of places - that this would cause inflexibility and lead to failure in a fixed catchment system.
He was concerned that parts of the city have been set against each other by the SAR, and argued that what the city really needs - especially with so many new developments springing up - is a new school. He thought the Argus should front a petition from the City of Brighton & Hove to be sent to Whitehall requesting, as a special case, that we be granted funds urgently for the building of a new school in the city. He thought that this would help resolve some of the issues, and also bring the city together again.
What was also interesting was that the Working Group had been informed by council officials that the head teachers of Varndean and Stringer were being consulted on certain issues:
- That the heads had been asked about adding classes to Dorothy Stringer and Varndean.
- That they had agreed not to use the 10% places that could be assigned to children based on aptitude.
- That they were talking to the heads about these schools not opting for Trust School status - which means they can set their own admissions criteria.
If Dorothy Stringer and Varndean did attain Trust School status, it would send the whole proposed fixed catchment system into turmoil.
He also suggested that David Hawker might find a way out of this problem by deciding to lead and drive a campaign for a new school for Brighton & Hove all the way to Whitehall.
Other speakers included ex-member of the Working Group, Martin Powell, who spoke eloquently about COMART and Kevin Allen who was concerned that the CofE representative on Scrutiny was being abused by councillors not happy with the outcome of that meeting (the return of the proposals to CF&S next Tuesday). Vanessa Brown also spoke briefly to offer her support to the campaign against the SAR.
SCHOOLS4COMMUNITIES SPEAKERS
Members of Schools4Communities spoke, including the Chair, Mark Bannister, Robert Eastwood, Paul Fellingham, and press spokesperson, Tracey-Ann Ross.
Mark Bannister gave a well-reasoned overview of the anti-proposals position, and set out some of the significant concerns for areas across the city including: Moulsecoomb, Bevendean, Coombe Road, Preston Park, Fiveways and Balfour, Patcham, Withdean and Westdene, parts of Hove, Hangleton, Portslade, Woodingdean and Rottingdean.
In addition, Robert Eastwood set out the future of the campaign. S4C are prepared to take the campaign all the way to Judicial Review. In the meantime, they will be providing more advice to parents on they difference they can personally make at the S4C website here.
The Argus have published an article on the meeting here.
Monday, 19 February 2007
Notice: Vital Meeting at Dorothy Stringer Tue 20th Feb 7.30pm
There will be a Schools4Communities meeting tomorrow night, Tuesday 20th February, at Dorothy Stringer School, to discuss the Secondary Admissions Review.
All Parents - that's from all areas - are welcome.
***This meeting is now doubly important as the Scrutiny Committee has returned the decision to the Children, Family and Schools Committee for another vote!***
All Parents - that's from all areas - are welcome.
- This is a chance to put forward your views on the whole process and the outcomes.
- This is also a chance for you to get involved in the struggle for a fair change to the distance measurement system.
- You might want to find out who schools4communities are and what they stand for.
- Or you may simply want to ensure that you stay informed in future by joining the Schools4Communities email list.
***This meeting is now doubly important as the Scrutiny Committee has returned the decision to the Children, Family and Schools Committee for another vote!***
Technorati Tags: CF&S Committee, Meetings, Notice, SAR, Secondary Admissions Review
Prophetic Quote from ex-head of COMART
Jill Clough, the ex-headteacher of COMART School, wrote a book about her experiences called Why State Schools Fail: And What We Can Do to Fix Them (published by UIT Cambridge, 2005).
Someone has sent me the following quote:
"He [the Director of Schools] added that the Council had agreed to a more just admissions process, which might eventually help the school to recruit more students; but there would be no public discussion of the proposals before the local elections in May 2003, and another year of consultation before any decision would be made. There were many marginal seats and so the controlling Labour Party was afraid of provoking debate which might lose them.
"My feeling of exhaustion as I left the meeting was compounded by the thought that if the future of the children was to be manipulated, yet again, by political expediency, my work would be futile." (p.129)
This "more just" admissions process was presumably the move to distance measurement, which would have meant more QP kids going to Comart, had it remained open. But the delay helped to sink the school.
Is it ringing alarm bells? Are you thinking of Cllr McCaffery's dismissal from the Children, Family and Schools Committee by the Labour Group? Perhaps it is time for a change at the Council?
Someone has sent me the following quote:
"He [the Director of Schools] added that the Council had agreed to a more just admissions process, which might eventually help the school to recruit more students; but there would be no public discussion of the proposals before the local elections in May 2003, and another year of consultation before any decision would be made. There were many marginal seats and so the controlling Labour Party was afraid of provoking debate which might lose them.
"My feeling of exhaustion as I left the meeting was compounded by the thought that if the future of the children was to be manipulated, yet again, by political expediency, my work would be futile." (p.129)
This "more just" admissions process was presumably the move to distance measurement, which would have meant more QP kids going to Comart, had it remained open. But the delay helped to sink the school.
Is it ringing alarm bells? Are you thinking of Cllr McCaffery's dismissal from the Children, Family and Schools Committee by the Labour Group? Perhaps it is time for a change at the Council?
Technorati Tags: Brighton & Hove Council, CF&S Committee, McCaffery, SAR, Secondary Admissions Review
Thursday, 15 February 2007
Email the Scrutiny panel about the decision
It is really important that you write/phone/email and let Councillors on the Scrutiny Committee know what you think about the new admissions system that has been voted through. They will be making a decision about whether to send the vote back to CF&S Committee again.
To remind you of the CF&S meeting, Labour members on that committee all voted for the proposals, as did the Green Party member Richard Mallender. You should note that Kevin Allen (Labour, Preston Park) and Anne Meadows (Labour, Moulsecoomb and Bevendean) spoke out against the new system at that meeting. Moulsecoomb and Bevendean's local councillor, Jack Hazelgrove, voted for the new admissions fixed catchments, including the new catchment for Falmer that ends at Bear Road. The Conservatives, who have a policy of not supporting lotteries, all voted against the proposals, along with Jayne Bennett (Independent, Stanford).
The Scrutiny panel are meeting this coming Monday and need to hear how you feel about the decision made by the Children, Families and Schools Committee on the 2nd February, and also about what you think of the Secondary Admissions Review, and how it was undertaken.
Children & Young People's Overview & Scrutiny Committee Members
Simon Battle (Chair, Labour, Goldsmid)
simon.battle@brighton-hove.gov.uk
01273 291139
Anne Giebeler (Independent, Goldsmid)
anne.giebeler@brighton-hove.gov.uk
01273 294364
Warren Morgan (East Brighton, Labour)
warren.morgan@brighton-hove.gov.uk
01273 294362
Jeanne Lepper (Hollingbury & Stanmer, Labour)
jeanne.lepper@brighton-hove.gov.uk
01273 291169
Georgia Wrighton (Greeen, Hanover & Elm Grove)
georgia.wrighton@brighton-hove.gov.uk
01273 294365
Kevin Allen (Preston Park, Labour)
kevin.allen@brighton-hove.gov.uk
01273 291197
Garry Peltzer Dunn (Wish, Conservative)
garry.peltzerdunn@brighton-hove.gov.uk
01273 291186
Dee Simson (Woodingdean, Conservative)
dee.simson@brighton-hove.gov.uk
01273 291178
Jan Young (Vice-Chair, Central Hove, Conservative)
jan.young@brighton-hove.gov.uk
01273 294361
Write to them:
c/o Kings House, Grand Avenue, Hove, BN3 2LS.
To remind you of the CF&S meeting, Labour members on that committee all voted for the proposals, as did the Green Party member Richard Mallender. You should note that Kevin Allen (Labour, Preston Park) and Anne Meadows (Labour, Moulsecoomb and Bevendean) spoke out against the new system at that meeting. Moulsecoomb and Bevendean's local councillor, Jack Hazelgrove, voted for the new admissions fixed catchments, including the new catchment for Falmer that ends at Bear Road. The Conservatives, who have a policy of not supporting lotteries, all voted against the proposals, along with Jayne Bennett (Independent, Stanford).
The Scrutiny panel are meeting this coming Monday and need to hear how you feel about the decision made by the Children, Families and Schools Committee on the 2nd February, and also about what you think of the Secondary Admissions Review, and how it was undertaken.
- When did you get to hear about the proposals?
- Did you even hear before the decision was made?
- And what do you think about the consultation with governors and the non-existent consultation with parents?
- Do you think this is fair to "the city as a whole" as so many councillors have said, or do you think it moves the problem to other areas?
- Do you think this is about Labour and Green groups fighting over marginal seats?
- Will you be voting for Labour in the elections in May, and would you have done previously?
- Do you think that the sacking of Juliet McCaffery was a disgraceful act that brought our democracy and the Council into disrepute?
- Do you think that this follows the mandatory requirements of the new code of admissions to secure diversity and increase opportunity in ALL the city's schools?
- Ask them what you should do if Falmer is not the right school for your child. How does this system improve choice for parents, particularly in the single catchments for schools like Falmer, Longhill, Portslade and Patcham?
- Can you trust the Council to make the right decision and consider residents in Moulsecoomb and Bevendean when it comes to the question of the Falmer Academy after the shameful sacking of Juliet McCaffery from CF&S Committee on 2nd Feb?
Children & Young People's Overview & Scrutiny Committee Members
Simon Battle (Chair, Labour, Goldsmid)
simon.battle@brighton-hove.gov.uk
01273 291139
Anne Giebeler (Independent, Goldsmid)
anne.giebeler@brighton-hove.gov.uk
01273 294364
Warren Morgan (East Brighton, Labour)
warren.morgan@brighton-hove.gov.uk
01273 294362
Jeanne Lepper (Hollingbury & Stanmer, Labour)
jeanne.lepper@brighton-hove.gov.uk
01273 291169
Georgia Wrighton (Greeen, Hanover & Elm Grove)
georgia.wrighton@brighton-hove.gov.uk
01273 294365
Kevin Allen (Preston Park, Labour)
kevin.allen@brighton-hove.gov.uk
01273 291197
Garry Peltzer Dunn (Wish, Conservative)
garry.peltzerdunn@brighton-hove.gov.uk
01273 291186
Dee Simson (Woodingdean, Conservative)
dee.simson@brighton-hove.gov.uk
01273 291178
Jan Young (Vice-Chair, Central Hove, Conservative)
jan.young@brighton-hove.gov.uk
01273 294361
Write to them:
c/o Kings House, Grand Avenue, Hove, BN3 2LS.
Potential Falmer Academy
There has been talk of turning Falmer into an Academy, with private funding of £2 million from Jon Aisbitt, a city financier and member of the Times Rich List. If and when this is agreed, the government will inject a further £27 million into the school.
• How big will the new building be? Part of Falmer’s attraction is the space around the school. As an Academy, the school grounds might be reduced from their current 21 hectares size to a meagre and DfES minimum of 4.2 hectares. This would be a massive loss.
• If the school site is reduced in size, what will the Council do with the rest of the land? Are they going to sell it off to developers? Will they be building a 1,000 space car park, as has been suggested?
• What will the school's curriculum be? Academies have powers to set their own curricula, and we hear, for example, of schools incorporating creationism to the detriment of evolutionary theory as just one example of a 'weird' alterations to the national curriculum.
• Whilst we support vocational education, we also want to make sure that the school thrives across the curriculum so that children who want to achieve academically can, and that children are also encouraged in a wide variety of sporting, and cultural pursuits. We want these options to be open to children from the area, and for them to receive the support at home and school that they need to achieve their potential and to be fulfilled, happy and productive members of society who care about their community.
• How much will parents be encouraged to be involved with the school? Academies can limit parent involvement on the governing board. Local parents want to be heavily involved. They want a good proportion of parents on the governing body of the school. They want to feel that the school is working WITH their community and not working ON their community.
• Academies are the intended panacea for schools that are failing, and yet Falmer has a ‘satisfactory’ for its latest Ofsted report, and is 'improving'. Why are they doing this to Falmer School? There is concern that this will disrupt and undermine the school's recent improvements.
• There is also concern that this is linked in some way to a new football stadium at Falmer. The decision for the stadium has not been taken, but the idea of a stadium being built in the area is worrying, especially if the school is also to be rebuilt.
The way that the Council behaved over the SAR process does not instill confidence in parents already uneasy at the idea of Falmer attaining Academy status. If the Council does go ahead with these proposals, we do not think they will listen to the concerns of local parents. So far, they have not consulted with or contacted parents in the Moulsecoomb and Bevendean area about the Academy, and the decision is to be made in the Spring.
This would enable Falmer to replace the old school buildings and improve resources like classroom equipment, the school might even take on new teaching staff. It might also attain a specialist status in business and enterprise.
However, we are still concerned about Falmer becoming an Academy for these reasons:
• Will the building be built around the working pupils? This happened to children at COMART and it contributed significantly to the schools declined.• How big will the new building be? Part of Falmer’s attraction is the space around the school. As an Academy, the school grounds might be reduced from their current 21 hectares size to a meagre and DfES minimum of 4.2 hectares. This would be a massive loss.
• If the school site is reduced in size, what will the Council do with the rest of the land? Are they going to sell it off to developers? Will they be building a 1,000 space car park, as has been suggested?
• What will the school's curriculum be? Academies have powers to set their own curricula, and we hear, for example, of schools incorporating creationism to the detriment of evolutionary theory as just one example of a 'weird' alterations to the national curriculum.
• Whilst we support vocational education, we also want to make sure that the school thrives across the curriculum so that children who want to achieve academically can, and that children are also encouraged in a wide variety of sporting, and cultural pursuits. We want these options to be open to children from the area, and for them to receive the support at home and school that they need to achieve their potential and to be fulfilled, happy and productive members of society who care about their community.
• How much will parents be encouraged to be involved with the school? Academies can limit parent involvement on the governing board. Local parents want to be heavily involved. They want a good proportion of parents on the governing body of the school. They want to feel that the school is working WITH their community and not working ON their community.
• Academies are the intended panacea for schools that are failing, and yet Falmer has a ‘satisfactory’ for its latest Ofsted report, and is 'improving'. Why are they doing this to Falmer School? There is concern that this will disrupt and undermine the school's recent improvements.
• There is also concern that this is linked in some way to a new football stadium at Falmer. The decision for the stadium has not been taken, but the idea of a stadium being built in the area is worrying, especially if the school is also to be rebuilt.
The way that the Council behaved over the SAR process does not instill confidence in parents already uneasy at the idea of Falmer attaining Academy status. If the Council does go ahead with these proposals, we do not think they will listen to the concerns of local parents. So far, they have not consulted with or contacted parents in the Moulsecoomb and Bevendean area about the Academy, and the decision is to be made in the Spring.
Parents from this area need more information.
Add your own questions and concerns as comments to this article.How the decision affects parents in our area
The Children, Families and Schools Committee decided, by a tight margin of one vote, to support the new proposals on secondary admissions.
That means all children in year 5 or below will go to schools according to a fixed catchment system. You can see a map of the new catchments on the Argus website.
Map of new fixed catchments
The Falmer catchment sits to the East of the Lewes Road, and runs all the way from Falmer village down to Bear Road taking in the areas of Moulsecoomb, Bevendean and Coombe Road on the Falmer School side of the Lewes Road.
For those of us in the Falmer catchment, you will be first in the queue, i.e. get priority, for a place for your child at Falmer. However, if you want a place at a different school then your child will be second in the queue. Some children will be able to get past this on the sibling link, i.e. they have a brother or sister at a school and so get priority at that school, as this link will continue until 2013.
The trouble is that as the number of school places across the city is so tight there is not much flexibility in the system. The dual catchments, i.e. they contain two schools, are for Dorothy Stringer/Varndean and Blatchington Mill/Hove Park. The Dorothy Stringer/Varndean catchment looks as if it will overflow as there are not enough places for children in the catchment and for the continuing sibling link. That means that any child from outside that catchment will not get a place in one of those schools, unless people inside the catchment decide not to send their children there. None of us think this is likely as these schools are so popular. The same is likely to be true of the Hove Park/Blatchington Mill catchment.
Those of us from this area campaigning against the proposals have been doing in part because, although we are constantly told we an still express a preference, the preference doesn't mean much when you are shut out of these schools. As these schools are the ones that get the best results - and folks, Ofsted and the League Tables were put there to help us to make a CHOICE about which school our child should go to - then, of course, many of us would like the opportunity to choose these schools.
BE FAIR TO FALMER
See the article on achieving a more balanced view of Falmer here.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE ARE TOO MANY PUPILS FOR PLACES
If a school is oversubscribed there will be a lottery to decide which children get the places at the school. Children might have to go through several lotteries before they get into a school if all the schools listed on their admissions forms are popular. They might even end up without getting one of their preferred schools.
You can still express your preferences, and you should still list your preferred schools on your admissions form and not just write "Falmer" alone if you are in the Falmer catchment. If you want Falmer School, you may find the school is oversubscribed and should list other options as well.
DIFFICULT TO PREDICT
It is very difficult to predict what the results of the new admissions system next year for our children - and this is partly what we have been saying in our arguments against the proposals. One thing that is predictable is that Blatchington Mill and Dorothy Stringer will be oversubscribed and there will need to be a lottery to decide on places. The popular schools are more likely to have to have lotteries to decide on places.
POTENTIAL ACADEMY AT FALMER
See the blog article here.
WE WILL FIGHT ON
We are continuing to fight against the decision taken at the Children, Families and Schools Committee to get the decision reversed. Until it does, we have to prepare for the single Falmer catchment and what this means for our children. If the decision is reversed, we need to start thinking about ways the city might produce a fairer system for ALL the children who live in Brighton & Hove.
That means all children in year 5 or below will go to schools according to a fixed catchment system. You can see a map of the new catchments on the Argus website.
Map of new fixed catchments
The Falmer catchment sits to the East of the Lewes Road, and runs all the way from Falmer village down to Bear Road taking in the areas of Moulsecoomb, Bevendean and Coombe Road on the Falmer School side of the Lewes Road.
For those of us in the Falmer catchment, you will be first in the queue, i.e. get priority, for a place for your child at Falmer. However, if you want a place at a different school then your child will be second in the queue. Some children will be able to get past this on the sibling link, i.e. they have a brother or sister at a school and so get priority at that school, as this link will continue until 2013.
The trouble is that as the number of school places across the city is so tight there is not much flexibility in the system. The dual catchments, i.e. they contain two schools, are for Dorothy Stringer/Varndean and Blatchington Mill/Hove Park. The Dorothy Stringer/Varndean catchment looks as if it will overflow as there are not enough places for children in the catchment and for the continuing sibling link. That means that any child from outside that catchment will not get a place in one of those schools, unless people inside the catchment decide not to send their children there. None of us think this is likely as these schools are so popular. The same is likely to be true of the Hove Park/Blatchington Mill catchment.
Those of us from this area campaigning against the proposals have been doing in part because, although we are constantly told we an still express a preference, the preference doesn't mean much when you are shut out of these schools. As these schools are the ones that get the best results - and folks, Ofsted and the League Tables were put there to help us to make a CHOICE about which school our child should go to - then, of course, many of us would like the opportunity to choose these schools.
BE FAIR TO FALMER
See the article on achieving a more balanced view of Falmer here.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE ARE TOO MANY PUPILS FOR PLACES
If a school is oversubscribed there will be a lottery to decide which children get the places at the school. Children might have to go through several lotteries before they get into a school if all the schools listed on their admissions forms are popular. They might even end up without getting one of their preferred schools.
You can still express your preferences, and you should still list your preferred schools on your admissions form and not just write "Falmer" alone if you are in the Falmer catchment. If you want Falmer School, you may find the school is oversubscribed and should list other options as well.
DIFFICULT TO PREDICT
It is very difficult to predict what the results of the new admissions system next year for our children - and this is partly what we have been saying in our arguments against the proposals. One thing that is predictable is that Blatchington Mill and Dorothy Stringer will be oversubscribed and there will need to be a lottery to decide on places. The popular schools are more likely to have to have lotteries to decide on places.
POTENTIAL ACADEMY AT FALMER
See the blog article here.
WE WILL FIGHT ON
We are continuing to fight against the decision taken at the Children, Families and Schools Committee to get the decision reversed. Until it does, we have to prepare for the single Falmer catchment and what this means for our children. If the decision is reversed, we need to start thinking about ways the city might produce a fairer system for ALL the children who live in Brighton & Hove.
Be Fair to Falmer
Some parents I have spoken to have been very anti-Falmer. Sometimes this is based on their own experience of the school as pupils themselves, and sometimes it is based on stories they are told and the reputation the school has had for years. One mother has recently told me that she sees children from Falmer School shopping and messing around on London Road during school hours. There's no doubt that a lot of bad things are said about Falmer.
Still, I'd ask you to be open-minded and fair about the school, and here's why and how you can do that.
The league tables also show Falmer doing well on the value-added score. That means that compared to schools with pupil intakes that get similar results in school tests at age 10/11 (Key Stage 2), Falmer does well at improving those childrens' results by the age of 15/16 (Key Stage 4). You can see the league tables for Brighton here, and you can click on the column headers to see how Falmer does for the value-added score.
But parents shouldn't just look at the league tables and Ofsted. You do have another way of assessing whether a school is right for your child. You should VISIT IT. In fact, you should visit all the schools that you would like to consider for your child, but don't miss out on Falmer as you might be surprised.
If you went to Falmer as a child, you might find that the school is a bit different now. Schools can change a lot in a matter of 1 or 2 years. GO AND VISIT THE SCHOOL. See for yourselves what they are doing to improve.
I have also been to see the school recently, and would definitely recommend you see it. They are doing a lot of good work there to make sure that the children thrive. There's a good atmosphere and the staff are in control, which is more than can be said for Varndean, which I also visited. In Falmer the children work quietly and seemed happy. They have also cracked down hard on bullying at the school and although no school can say there is no bullying, I think their methods are working well.
Even so, you may still decide that Falmer is not right for your son or daughter. Then, under the new system, you face a very difficult task in getting them into another school in the city. If this is the case - and after you have viewed several schools - then go and speak to your child's headmaster/headmistress and ask their advice.
I am also concerned about the proposals for a city academy at Falmer School. You can see why here.
WE NEED TO BE TEACHERS TOO
It is up to us parents, just as much as the schools, to educate our children; we have to be they to try to help them learn to write an essay and that is hard when you aren't sure yourself. Sometimes people think this is only the job of the school, but it isn't.
If you are nervous at the idea of helping your child with their homework, then talk to the school ask them to help you to help your child learn. Even if you can't explain their homework, what you can do is praise them and give them a hug when they make an effort. Sometimes kids suffer low self-esteem and can do more than they think they can, so to tell them that they can do more than they might think if they set their minds to it.
Ask them what they like doing and what they dream about being when they grow up and find out from the school how your child might go about reaching their goals.
Take them to the local library to borrow books, visit local and national museums. Have you ever visited the British Museum, or the Natural History Museum? - where they have life-sized mechanical dinosaurs and a fake earthquake. You own a little bit of those museums, they are yours. And, of course, we should get outside and play football with them, go for walks, visit friends and all the other things we usually do.
We have to support our children's learning by encouraging them to value their school and their school work, as well as teaching our children to be kind and polite to people, to support their peers and their community. We must celebrate their successes when they do well, and to encourage them to support others when they succeed, and also when fail. We all know bringing up kids is no easy task, and beyond the parents it is up to the whole community to encourage and support its youngest members to be happy, productive people who feel that the future is bright, that they can succeed whether they want to be a plumber, doctor, teacher, florist, chef, scientist, writer, musician or gardener. We hear so much about our children that is bad, so lets start to remind them how good they are.
Still, I'd ask you to be open-minded and fair about the school, and here's why and how you can do that.
The league tables also show Falmer doing well on the value-added score. That means that compared to schools with pupil intakes that get similar results in school tests at age 10/11 (Key Stage 2), Falmer does well at improving those childrens' results by the age of 15/16 (Key Stage 4). You can see the league tables for Brighton here, and you can click on the column headers to see how Falmer does for the value-added score.
But parents shouldn't just look at the league tables and Ofsted. You do have another way of assessing whether a school is right for your child. You should VISIT IT. In fact, you should visit all the schools that you would like to consider for your child, but don't miss out on Falmer as you might be surprised.
If you went to Falmer as a child, you might find that the school is a bit different now. Schools can change a lot in a matter of 1 or 2 years. GO AND VISIT THE SCHOOL. See for yourselves what they are doing to improve.
I have also been to see the school recently, and would definitely recommend you see it. They are doing a lot of good work there to make sure that the children thrive. There's a good atmosphere and the staff are in control, which is more than can be said for Varndean, which I also visited. In Falmer the children work quietly and seemed happy. They have also cracked down hard on bullying at the school and although no school can say there is no bullying, I think their methods are working well.
Even so, you may still decide that Falmer is not right for your son or daughter. Then, under the new system, you face a very difficult task in getting them into another school in the city. If this is the case - and after you have viewed several schools - then go and speak to your child's headmaster/headmistress and ask their advice.
I am also concerned about the proposals for a city academy at Falmer School. You can see why here.
WE NEED TO BE TEACHERS TOO
It is up to us parents, just as much as the schools, to educate our children; we have to be they to try to help them learn to write an essay and that is hard when you aren't sure yourself. Sometimes people think this is only the job of the school, but it isn't.
If you are nervous at the idea of helping your child with their homework, then talk to the school ask them to help you to help your child learn. Even if you can't explain their homework, what you can do is praise them and give them a hug when they make an effort. Sometimes kids suffer low self-esteem and can do more than they think they can, so to tell them that they can do more than they might think if they set their minds to it.
Ask them what they like doing and what they dream about being when they grow up and find out from the school how your child might go about reaching their goals.
Take them to the local library to borrow books, visit local and national museums. Have you ever visited the British Museum, or the Natural History Museum? - where they have life-sized mechanical dinosaurs and a fake earthquake. You own a little bit of those museums, they are yours. And, of course, we should get outside and play football with them, go for walks, visit friends and all the other things we usually do.
We have to support our children's learning by encouraging them to value their school and their school work, as well as teaching our children to be kind and polite to people, to support their peers and their community. We must celebrate their successes when they do well, and to encourage them to support others when they succeed, and also when fail. We all know bringing up kids is no easy task, and beyond the parents it is up to the whole community to encourage and support its youngest members to be happy, productive people who feel that the future is bright, that they can succeed whether they want to be a plumber, doctor, teacher, florist, chef, scientist, writer, musician or gardener. We hear so much about our children that is bad, so lets start to remind them how good they are.
Technorati Tags: Falmer Academy, puppy
Sunday, 11 February 2007
How to Complain to the Council
If you are unhappy with any aspect of the process of the Secondary Admissions Review, then you should complain to the Council asap. It is vital that you do all you can to reverse the decision.
Make it clear to the Council that parents in Moulsecoomb and Bevendean will not be ignored.
Information about the flaws in the Secondary Admissions Review are available in this article:
Flaws in the Secondary Admissions Review
COUNCIL COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE
There is information on how to make a complaint on the Council’s website here.
You can send your complaint to
Standards & Complaints Team, Brighton & Hove City Council, Freepost
SEA2560, Brighton BN1 1ZW
OR complaints@brighton-hove.gov.uk
OR free phone 0500 291229
OR fill in a complaints form here:
The online form gives you some idea of the format for complaints. You might want to send an email or letter so you have a copy of what you send for your own records.
You might also complain to the Standards Board at the same time - and state this in your complaint to the Council.
http://www.standardsboard.co.uk/
You can ask for action to be taken, for example, when complaining about the sacking of Juliet McCaffery, I will request the her reinstatement to the Children, Families and Schools Committee, and a re-run of the vote on the proposals.
Make it clear to the Council that parents in Moulsecoomb and Bevendean will not be ignored.
Information about the flaws in the Secondary Admissions Review are available in this article:
Flaws in the Secondary Admissions Review
COUNCIL COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE
There is information on how to make a complaint on the Council’s website here.
You can send your complaint to
Standards & Complaints Team, Brighton & Hove City Council, Freepost
SEA2560, Brighton BN1 1ZW
OR complaints@brighton-hove.gov.uk
OR free phone 0500 291229
OR fill in a complaints form here:
The online form gives you some idea of the format for complaints. You might want to send an email or letter so you have a copy of what you send for your own records.
You might also complain to the Standards Board at the same time - and state this in your complaint to the Council.
http://www.standardsboard.co.uk/
You can ask for action to be taken, for example, when complaining about the sacking of Juliet McCaffery, I will request the her reinstatement to the Children, Families and Schools Committee, and a re-run of the vote on the proposals.
Flaws in the Secondary Admissions Review Process
Many parents are fuming at the way that the changes to secondary admissions have been made, and the way that their concerns have been ignored.
Here are some of, what we believe, are the worst examples of procedure by the Secondary Admissions Review and the Council during this last review. When you have read them you might want think about complaining to the Council.
1. The sacking of Juliet McCaffery by Simon Burgess, leader of the Labour group, at the eleventh hour. He said it was because she is only thinking about her constituents. We know that she is concerned about the whole city. She was at the demo on 6th January and listened to parents from across the city then; she also received emails from concerned parents from every area.
As far as we can see, Juliet McCaffery only put into practice no.6, Personal Judgement, of "The Ten Principles of Public Life" as stated in the Brighton and Hove "Code of Conduct for Members" which states
"Members may take account of the views of others, including their political groups, but should reach their own conclusions on the issues before them and act in accordance with those conclusions."
Meanwhile, Simon Burgess' actions can be seen as bringing into disrepute the very notion of democracy in this publicly elected body. By sacking Juliet McCaffery, he could be accused of breaking (4) and (5a) of the Code of Conduct for Members:
(4) A Member must not in his/her official capacity, or any other circumstance,
conduct himself/herself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as
bringing his/her office or authority into disrepute.
(5a) [A Member] must not be in his/her official capacity, or any other circumstance, use
his/her position as a Member improperly to confer on or secure for
himself/herself or any other person, an advantage or disadvantage...
Find the Code of Conduct here: Code of Conduct for Members
2. The lack of consultation with many of the parents in Brighton and Hove, including those from Coombe Road School who found out about the consultation and proposals at the end of November 2006, parents from Bevendean Primary who found out just before the Christmas holidays, and others from elsewhere in the City who didn't find out until the New Year. Many parents still don't know. We want to know why the Council did not send out letters to all parents after at the beginning of the consultation process on November 6th, and why they did not properly consult with parents by sending out a questionnaire as they did the previous year? The Working Group
3. Failure to extend the consultation for a further 6 weeks after changes to the original proposals which had been presented to CF&S Committee at the beginning of the public consultation on 6th November. There are two alterations that require further consultation: the move south of the border to the Portslade catchment to the railway, and the change to the Patcham catchment to encompass Coldean. If they had moved the Falmer catchment boundary south they were intended to extend consultation. Why are these changes any different, since they were made well after the meeting on November 6th?
4. The Governors' meeting on January 8th at which a pro-SAR member of the Parent Stakeholder Group and Working Group, Sue Smith, was allowed to speak at length to those present about the benefits of the proposals and the effectiveness of the consultation and to answer questions from the floor. This was unbalanced and undemocratic, as no anti-SAR member of the PSG or Working Group were given similar privileges. Also, as a result, many governors did not get a chance to ask questions, and when they requested a further governors' meeting, they were flatly refused.
5. The "maps of injustice" posted on the Council website that originated with Sue Smith and, it was discovered, were in fact inaccurate. They were called emotively named "maps of injustice" and were clearly biased for the proposals.
We urge all parents angry with the way that the Secondary Admissions Review has been conducted, and with the way the decision was made at Children Families and Schools Committee on Friday 2nd February to write to the council and complain. See this article:
How to Complain to the Council
Here are some of, what we believe, are the worst examples of procedure by the Secondary Admissions Review and the Council during this last review. When you have read them you might want think about complaining to the Council.
1. The sacking of Juliet McCaffery by Simon Burgess, leader of the Labour group, at the eleventh hour. He said it was because she is only thinking about her constituents. We know that she is concerned about the whole city. She was at the demo on 6th January and listened to parents from across the city then; she also received emails from concerned parents from every area.
As far as we can see, Juliet McCaffery only put into practice no.6, Personal Judgement, of "The Ten Principles of Public Life" as stated in the Brighton and Hove "Code of Conduct for Members" which states
"Members may take account of the views of others, including their political groups, but should reach their own conclusions on the issues before them and act in accordance with those conclusions."
Meanwhile, Simon Burgess' actions can be seen as bringing into disrepute the very notion of democracy in this publicly elected body. By sacking Juliet McCaffery, he could be accused of breaking (4) and (5a) of the Code of Conduct for Members:
(4) A Member must not in his/her official capacity, or any other circumstance,
conduct himself/herself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as
bringing his/her office or authority into disrepute.
(5a) [A Member] must not be in his/her official capacity, or any other circumstance, use
his/her position as a Member improperly to confer on or secure for
himself/herself or any other person, an advantage or disadvantage...
Find the Code of Conduct here: Code of Conduct for Members
2. The lack of consultation with many of the parents in Brighton and Hove, including those from Coombe Road School who found out about the consultation and proposals at the end of November 2006, parents from Bevendean Primary who found out just before the Christmas holidays, and others from elsewhere in the City who didn't find out until the New Year. Many parents still don't know. We want to know why the Council did not send out letters to all parents after at the beginning of the consultation process on November 6th, and why they did not properly consult with parents by sending out a questionnaire as they did the previous year? The Working Group
3. Failure to extend the consultation for a further 6 weeks after changes to the original proposals which had been presented to CF&S Committee at the beginning of the public consultation on 6th November. There are two alterations that require further consultation: the move south of the border to the Portslade catchment to the railway, and the change to the Patcham catchment to encompass Coldean. If they had moved the Falmer catchment boundary south they were intended to extend consultation. Why are these changes any different, since they were made well after the meeting on November 6th?
4. The Governors' meeting on January 8th at which a pro-SAR member of the Parent Stakeholder Group and Working Group, Sue Smith, was allowed to speak at length to those present about the benefits of the proposals and the effectiveness of the consultation and to answer questions from the floor. This was unbalanced and undemocratic, as no anti-SAR member of the PSG or Working Group were given similar privileges. Also, as a result, many governors did not get a chance to ask questions, and when they requested a further governors' meeting, they were flatly refused.
5. The "maps of injustice" posted on the Council website that originated with Sue Smith and, it was discovered, were in fact inaccurate. They were called emotively named "maps of injustice" and were clearly biased for the proposals.
We urge all parents angry with the way that the Secondary Admissions Review has been conducted, and with the way the decision was made at Children Families and Schools Committee on Friday 2nd February to write to the council and complain. See this article:
How to Complain to the Council
Juliet McCaffery sacked from Committee
Juliet McCaffery was sacked at the last minute from the Children Families and Schools (CF&S) Committee by Simon Burgess, leader of the Labour Group on the Council. He stated that this move was made because she was only considering her own constituents.
To most parents across the city, this looks like a cynical move to ensure that the new secondary admissions proposals were passed.
The resulting vote was tied 5 votes all, which meant that the Chair, Pat Hawkes, Labour for Stanmer and Hollingbury, had the deciding vote.
You can see an Argus article on the sacking of Juliet, and readers comments, here.
What does this say about the democratic principles of the Labour group on our Council?
If you are concerned about the actions of Simon Burgess and the Labour group, email or write to the Council and make a formal complaint. Find out how to complain to the Council here. And read about other flaws in the process here.
Read the Schools4Communities letter to Pat Hawkes here. This gives details of the decision taken at the CF&S Committee including the shameful sacking of Cllr McCaffery.
Infringements of the Council's "Code of Conduct of Members"
As far as we can see, Juliet McCaffery only put into practice no.6, Personal Judgement, of "The Ten Principles of Public Life" as stated in the Brighton and Hove "Code of Conduct for Members" which states
"Members may take account of the views of others, including their political groups, but should reach their own conclusions on the issues before them and act in accordance with those conclusions."
Meanwhile, Simon Burgess' actions can be seen as bringing into disrepute the very notion of democracy in this publicly elected body. By sacking Juliet McCaffery, he could be accused of breaking (4) and (5a) of the Code of Conduct for Members:
(4) A Member must not in his/her official capacity, or any other circumstance,
conduct himself/herself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as
bringing his/her office or authority into disrepute.
(5a) [A Member] must not be in his/her official capacity, or any other circumstance, use
his/her position as a Member improperly to confer on or secure for
himself/herself or any other person, an advantage or disadvantage...
Find the Code of Conduct here: Code of Conduct for Members
To most parents across the city, this looks like a cynical move to ensure that the new secondary admissions proposals were passed.
The resulting vote was tied 5 votes all, which meant that the Chair, Pat Hawkes, Labour for Stanmer and Hollingbury, had the deciding vote.
You can see an Argus article on the sacking of Juliet, and readers comments, here.
What does this say about the democratic principles of the Labour group on our Council?
If you are concerned about the actions of Simon Burgess and the Labour group, email or write to the Council and make a formal complaint. Find out how to complain to the Council here. And read about other flaws in the process here.
Read the Schools4Communities letter to Pat Hawkes here. This gives details of the decision taken at the CF&S Committee including the shameful sacking of Cllr McCaffery.
Infringements of the Council's "Code of Conduct of Members"
As far as we can see, Juliet McCaffery only put into practice no.6, Personal Judgement, of "The Ten Principles of Public Life" as stated in the Brighton and Hove "Code of Conduct for Members" which states
"Members may take account of the views of others, including their political groups, but should reach their own conclusions on the issues before them and act in accordance with those conclusions."
Meanwhile, Simon Burgess' actions can be seen as bringing into disrepute the very notion of democracy in this publicly elected body. By sacking Juliet McCaffery, he could be accused of breaking (4) and (5a) of the Code of Conduct for Members:
(4) A Member must not in his/her official capacity, or any other circumstance,
conduct himself/herself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as
bringing his/her office or authority into disrepute.
(5a) [A Member] must not be in his/her official capacity, or any other circumstance, use
his/her position as a Member improperly to confer on or secure for
himself/herself or any other person, an advantage or disadvantage...
Find the Code of Conduct here: Code of Conduct for Members
Technorati Tags: CF&S Committee, News, SAR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)